Fluoride dangers

How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There

Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology (2000) and Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg writes:

“Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don’t have to force it on people.”

When the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, there was little evidence of its safety. Now, six decades later and after most countries have rejected the practice, more than 70 percent of Americans, as well as 200 million people worldwide, are drinking fluoridated water. The Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association continue to promote it – and even mandatory statewide water fluoridation – despite increasing evidence that it is not only unnecessary, but potentially hazardous to human health.In this timely and important book, Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. H. Spedding Micklem take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the dental and medical establishments endorse a public health measure doesn’t mean it’s safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals that go into the drinking water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not even pharmaceutical grade, but rather a hazardous waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is illegal to dump this waste into the sea or local surface water, and yet it is allowed in our drinking water. To make matters worse, this program receives no oversight from the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency takes no responsibility for the practice.And from an ethical standpoint, say the authors, water fluoridation is a bad medical practice: individuals are being forced to take medication without their informed consent, there is no control over the dose, and no monitoring of possible side effects.At once painstakingly documented and also highly readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and endocrine system, and argues that the evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak.About the authorsDr. Paul Connett is the Director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and the Executive Director of its parent body, the American Environmental Health Studies Project (AEHSP). He has spoken and given more than 2,000 presentations in forty-nine states and fifty-two countries on the issue of waste management. He holds a bachelors degree from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College and is a retired professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University. He lives in Canton, New York.

Dr. James S. Beck is a Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary and holds doctorates in medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and biophysics from the University of California, Berkeley. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

H. Spedding Micklem is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. He holds a D.Phil from the University of Oxford. He lives in Edinburgh, Scotland.

In 2006 the National Research Council published the most comprehensive review to date of the scientific studies into the issue entitled ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA’s Standards’. The review panel found that hydrofluorosilicic acid has been linked with preventable diseases like arthritis, diabetes, osteosarcoma, Alzheimer’s, Down’s syndrome, osteoporosis, chronic fatigue, and hypocalcemia. The weight of evidence suggests that fluoride causes damage throughout the human organism: cells, skins, bones, joints, ligaments, kidneys, liver, lungs, and intestines. Fluoride is shown to depress the thyroid gland, impairs kidney function, and calcify the pineal gland. Fluoride crosses the blood-brain barrier intact and causes neurological damage that lowers IQ. Fluoride is especially dangerous to the brain because it combines with aluminum which is known to cause Alzheimer’s and dementia. Fluoride also damages the DNA by causing cells to mutate, which is one of the triggers of cancer.

Yet for some doctors speaking the truth has not come without a price. The best example may be Dr. Phyllis Mullinex, who used to be a leading researcher with the Forsyth Dental Institute. She created an innovative computer pattern recognition software to study the neurotoxicity of chemicals. Then she was asked to study fluoride. At first she balked that it was a waste of time. Like most doctors, she believed that fluoride as safe and harmless because it was in toothpaste and drinking water. Yet the software revealed that fluoride even in small doses causes effects similar to hyperactivity and Attention Deficit Disorder. The results were congruent with numerous studies in China that show that fluoride lowers the IQ of children. When Dr. Mullinex published these surprising results, she was promptly fired from Forsyth and since then has not been able to find a position or receive research grants.

National Cancer Institute co-founder Dr. Dean Burke has said: “We estimate that since fluoridation was introduced into the U.S., there have been almost as many excess deaths associated with fluoridation as the sum total of all American military deaths since the founding of the USA 1776. Now that’s an awful burden for pro-fluoridationists to bear if they can come to see that they have been responsible for this. The underlying clandestine force behind water fluoridation is a need by various industries to get rid of various toxic fluoride byproducts, about as tough to get rid of as radioactive waste. The dentists are by and large pawns.”

The truth is that fluoride has a long shady history as a toxic chemical that goes all the way back to the Manhattan Project. Declassified documents show that scientists like the Manhattan Project’s chief toxicologist Harold Hodge were ordered to cover up the dangers of toxins like fluoride in order to prevent lawsuits against the Pentagon and military contractors. Later Harold Hodge was a leading promoter of fluoride and appeared in education films in a white smock spelling out on a blackboard that fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing tooth cavities. The research to support such claims came from scientists like Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute, who also argued on behalf of asbestos, and Robert Kehoe of the Ketting Laboratory, who also defended lead. Such “science for hire” was financed by corporations, and the skewed findings were used as ammunition for the Fluorine Lawyers Committee of litigators who defended the industry in lawsuits. Dr. Leonard Weinstein of Cornell University said in 1983: “Certainly there has been more litigation on alleged damage to agriculture by fluoride than all other pollutants combined.”

In the past century we have seen epidemics of preventable diseases like arthritis, diabetes and cancer. When we stop to think, we understand that the true cause is the pollution by toxic chemicals of our air, food and water. We know that fluoride in the water is one of the causes of these diseases. The damage cannot be undone, but if we wish to begin to heal our society, if we want to cleanse the public body of the poisons we consume, then we must begin by facing the truth. Fluoride is more than just a health care issue. It’s about more than mass medication without informed consent. Fluoride is a metaphor for what’s wrong with how the system works. Water fluoridation is a racket being perpetrated upon the people. It’s a scheme that costs the public hundreds of millions for the fluoride itself plus incalculable millions in health care costs. It’s yet another case of public finance of private profit, a business model that simply would not be viable without government subsidy, which is a truism of the whole capitalism system. Fluoride demonstrates once again how big business is able to control public opinion with bullshit and twist politics around its little finger like a mobster’s pinky ring. Fluoride has been one of the myths of our culture for fifty years, and as the lie unravels around a moral crime, we find the fingerprints of unscrupulous corporations out for profit with no regard for the planet and no respect for life. Until we can face up to this reality, and speak out against the status quo, we continue to live with poisoned water and everything it represents.

Fluoridated water in tap water and bottled water unsafe for infants, children, adults, and elderly

“Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient light lobotomy]

“The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.

any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically.” CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.

“Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity–treason!”

New science indicating fluorideâ€™s dangers to the brain and other organs will be presented by prominent fluoride research scientists during back-to-back conferences of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in Toronto August 7-11, 2008.

Fluoride, added to water supplies to prevent tooth decay, is also in virtually all non-organic foods and beverages. Fluorideâ€™s brain effects were never examined prior to water fluoridation.

Recently, because of health concerns, Health Canada recommended that fluoride levels be lowered in Canadian water supplies (0.7 mg/L) , childrenâ€™s toothpaste and infant formula but claims that â€œthe weight of evidence does not support a link between fluoride and intelligence quotient deficit.â€

â€œIt is hard to believe that any â€œweight of evidenceâ€ analysis could possibly dismiss fluorideâ€™s neurological impacts. There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that donâ€™t. I look forward to reading the full report when it is made available,â€ says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director.

According to ISFR conference organizer, Dr. Hardy Limeback, â€œOur conference features experts who researched the dangers that fluoride poses to human health. Our keynote speaker, Dr. A.K. Susheela, (Executive Director, Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation, India) probably knows more about fluorideâ€™s toxic effects to the body than any other living scientist. It is important that officials who promote water fluoridation hear what she and others have to say,â€ says Limeback.

Susheela can also explain to Medical Doctors, often untrained in fluoride toxicology, how to diagnose, treat and reverse early symptoms of fluoride toxicity which mimic arthritis and irritable bowel syndrome.

The latest issue of ISFRâ€™s journal, Fluoride, published 12 newly-translated Chinese studies, which report fluorideâ€™s effects on the brain, including the lowering of IQ in children. These and other brain studies will be reviewed at both conferences.

When it comes to fluoridating drinking water, Ontario and Quebec couldn’t be further apart. Ontario has the country’s highest rate of adding the tooth-enamel-strengthening chemical into municipal supplies, while Quebec has one of the lowest, with practically no one drinking fluoridated water.

But surprisingly, the two provinces have very little difference in tooth-decay rates, a finding that is likely to intensify the ongoing controversy over the practice of adding fluoride to water as a public health measure.

Quebeckers have more cavities than people in Ontario, but the difference is slight. Among children 6 to 19, considered the most decay-prone part of the population, the rate in Ontario was lower by less than half a cavity per child.

In the 6-11 age group, Ontario kids have 3.5 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 1.7 cavities compared to 1.76 in Quebec.

In the 12-19 age group, Ontario youths have 15.8 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 2.35 cavities compared to 2.79.

Fluoride facts

Fluoridation practices vary widely around the world and in Canada. Most of Europe doesn’t fluoridate, and practices vary across the country. There are no national figures to show whether cavity rates differ substantially as a result of fluoridation.

Our provinces’ populations vary in percentages that have fluoridated water.

In a study it conducted recently into the health status of Canadians. Experts peered into the mouths of more than 5,000 Canadians from 2007 to 2009, tallying the number of cavities and teeth with filings, to try to get an idea of the state of oral health of the nation.After a request from The Globe and Mail for a breakdown of the cavity rates by province, Statistics Canada tabulated the figures for Ontario and Quebec, where it said it had a sufficient number of people to be a representative sample.Statscan said it couldn’t compile meaningful data for British Columbia and Alberta, which are in a similar situation. British Columbia has practically no one drinking fluoridated water, while nearly three-quarters of Albertans rely on municipal supplies where the chemical is added.The paper sought the information to see what light it would shed on the effectiveness of fluoridation, which has been touted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, and is endorsed by all dental associations in the country and by Health Canada.But the results showed that if fluoridation is the only major difference between the two provinces, the chemical is preventing fewer than half a cavity per child in Ontario.

Health Canada down played the significance of the findings.

“While accurate,” the data on the children are “an incomplete picture of the tooth decay situation…. [and] cannot be used to form conclusions regarding the efficacy of fluoride use in water,” Health Canada said.

The federal department said firm conclusions can’t be drawn from the Statscan survey because it didn’t collect assessments on individual intakes of the chemical. To make a proper assessment, Health Canada said it would need detailed information on whether people in the two provinces differ in their intake fluoride supplements, drink tap water or bottled water, and use fluoridated toothpaste.

But fluoridation is one major and obvious difference between the provinces. More than three-quarters of Ontario residents live in areas where municipal water supplies contain the chemical. In Quebec, 94 per cent have water free of the additive, according to figures published by Health Canada in 2007.

Since then, Quebec City has voted to stop fluoridating, indicating that the difference between the two provinces is currently even more pronounced.

Some critics of fluoridation say the survey does raise questions about the practice.

“Fluoridation is no longer effective,” contends Hardy Limeback, head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto, who says adding the chemical to water is “more harmful than beneficial.”

Although fluoridation is touted as an unalloyed benefit by public health agencies, which estimate it cuts cavity rates by 20 per cent to 40 per cent, many community groups have sprung up across Canada lobbying to stop the practice, which is subject to repeal by local referendums. Some health professionals are worried fluoridation may have under-appreciated risks.

While fluoride toughens the outside of teeth to make them more resistant to bacteria-causing decay, a number of medical journal studies have linked exposure to altered thyroid function, and to reduced IQ levels in children, although the intellectual impairments were found at levels of the chemical in water well above those used for municipal supplies.

The most worrisome study, by Harvard researchers, appeared in 2006 in the journal Cancer Causes and Control and found that boys aged 7 exposed to high levels of fluoridated water were about four times more likely to develop childhood osteosarcoma. It’s a rare bone cancer that felled Canadian icon Terry Fox and almost always leads to amputations.

There has also been a worldwide reduction in cavity rates, regardless of whether countries use the chemical, suggesting factors other than adding it to water supplies are at work.

One theory is that most people are already getting adequate exposure to fluoride through toothpastes, so the amounts in water aren’t making much difference in tooth decay rates.

“The parallel reduction in caries [cavities] incidents in countries with a lot of fluoridation and countries with not much fluoridation is quite dramatic,” says Warren Bell, former head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, a group that questions the practice.

Dr. Limeback said factors that might be preventing caries include increased exposure to vitamin D, better oral hygiene, less sugar consumption, and even antibiotics.

When fluoridation started 60 years ago, doctors thought swallowing the chemical was beneficial by strengthening teeth from the inside out. Dr. Limeback said more recent research shows that if there is a benefit, it is from the topical application of fluoride to the surface of teeth, which suggests that brushing with a toothpaste is more effective than drinking water containing the chemical.

Nearly 70 percent of U.S. residents who get water from community water systems now receive fluoridated water, according to a report published Thursday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The proportion of the U.S. population receiving fluoridated water, about 184 million people, increased from 65.8 percent in 1992 to 69.2 percent in 2006, said the report.

The percentage of people served by community water systems with optimal levels (which are defined by the state and vary based on such things as the climate) of fluoridated water ranged from 8.4 percent in Hawaii to 100 percent in the District of Columbia, according to the report.

“Community water fluoridation is an equitable, cost-effective, and cost-saving method of delivering fluoride to most people,” said William Maas, director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health. “We’ve seen some marked improvements; however, there are still too many states that have not met the national goal. The national goal is that 75 percent of U.S. residents who are on community water systems be receiving fluoridated water by 2010.”

Fluoride, a naturally occurring compound in the environment, can reduce or prevent tooth decay. Adding or maintaining tiny levels of fluoride in drinking water is a safe and effective public health measure to prevent and control tooth decay (dental caries). The second half of the 20th century saw a major decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries, attributed in part to the increasing use of fluoride.

Based upon studies and a systematic review, the new report suggests that fluoridation resulted in a median 29.1 percent relative decrease in tooth decay in the United States.

Is Your Faucet Making You Sick?2010

Your drinking water may be contaminated with lead, even if you’re using faucets claiming to be ‘lead-free.’ Here’s what we can do about it.

By now we’ve all heard the dangers of lead – at any level. The American Heart Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the World Health Organization, and every other health-based organization that has reviewed the available studies have concluded that there is no safe level of lead in the human body. Human lead exposure has been associated with reduced cognitive function, aggressive behavior, increased criminal activity, digestive ailments, nervous system disorders, cardiovascular impairment, and bone marrow damage, just to name a few. Recent medical research has demonstrated that many of these ailments are caused by low levels of lead exposures – levels that were previously believed to be safe. Lead in our bloodstream robs us of our future, as it is particularly toxic to our children’s health. Furthermore, unlike other toxins that our bodies can remove, lead accumulates over time and can have adverse impacts throughout adulthood and can even shorten our lives.

===========

Study Finds: Large Number of Public Wells in U.S. Have Potentially Harmful Contaminants in Source Water

More than 20 percent of untreated water samples from 932 public wells across the nation contained at least one contaminant at levels of potential health concern, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey.

About 105 million people – or more than one-third of the nation’s population – receive their drinking water from one of the 140,000 public water systems across the United States that rely on groundwater pumped from public wells

The USGS study focused primarily on source (untreated) water collected from public wells before treatment or blending rather than the finished (treated) drinking water that water utilities deliver to their customers.

“By focusing primarily on source-water quality, and by testing for many contaminants that are not regulated in drinking water, this USGS study complements the extensive monitoring of public water systems that is routinely conducted for regulatory and compliance purposes by federal, state and local drinking-water programs,” said Matthew C. Larsen, USGS Associate Director for Water. “Findings assist water utility managers and regulators in making decisions about future monitoring needs and drinking-water issues.”

Findings showed that naturally occurring contaminants, such as radon and arsenic, accounted for about three-quarters of contaminant concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks in untreated source water. Naturally occurring contaminants are mostly derived from the natural geologic materials that make up the aquifers from which well water is withdrawn.

Man-made contaminants were also found in untreated water sampled from the public wells, including herbicides, insecticides, solvents, disinfection by-products, nitrate, and gasoline chemicals. Man-made contaminants accounted for about one-quarter of contaminant concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks, but were detected in 64 percent of the samples, predominantly in samples from unconfined aquifers.

“Detections of contaminants do not necessarily indicate a concern for human health because USGS analytical methods can detect many contaminants at concentrations that are 100-fold to 1,000-fold lower than human-health benchmarks,” said lead scientist Patricia Toccalino. “Assessing contaminants in these small amounts helps to track emerging issues in our water resources and to identify contaminants that may warrant inclusion in future monitoring.”

Most (279) of the contaminants analyzed in this study are not federally regulated in finished drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The USGS also sampled paired source and finished (treated) water from a smaller subset of 94 public wells. Findings showed that many man-made organic contaminants detected in source water generally were detected in finished water at similar concentrations. Organic contaminants detected in both treated and source water typically were detected at concentrations well below human-health benchmarks, however.

Additionally, the study shows that contaminants found in public wells usually co-occurred with other contaminants as mixtures. Mixtures can be a concern because the total combined toxicity of contaminants in water may be greater than that of any single contaminant. Mixtures of contaminants with concentrations approaching benchmarks were found in 84 percent of wells, but mixtures of contaminants above health benchmarks were found less frequently, in 4 percent of wells.

This USGS study identifies which contaminant mixtures may be of most concern in groundwater used for public-water supply and can help human-health researchers to target and prioritize toxicity assessments of contaminant mixtures. The USGS report identifies the need for continued research because relatively little is known about the potential health effects of most mixtures of contaminants.

Wells included in this study are located in 41 states and withdraw water from parts of 30 regionally extensive aquifers, which constitute about one-half of the principal aquifers used for water supply in the United States.

Human-health benchmarks used in this study include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Levels for regulated contaminants and USGS Health-Based Screening Levels for unregulated contaminants, which are non-enforceable guidelines developed by the USGS in collaboration with the EPA and other water partners.

Treated drinking water from public wells is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Water utilities, however, are not required to treat water for unregulated contaminants. The EPA uses USGS information on the occurrence of unregulated contaminants to identify contaminants that may require drinking-water regulation in the future.

Showering may be bad for your health, say US scientists, who have shown that dirty shower heads can deliver a face full of harmful bacteria.

Tests revealed nearly a third of devices harbor significant levels of a bug that causes lung disease. Levels of Mycobacterium avium were 100 times higher than those found in typical household water supplies.

M. avium forms a biofilm that clings to the inside of the shower head, reports the National Academy of Science.

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, the study authors say their findings might explain why there have been more cases of these lung infections in recent years, linked with people tending to take more showers and fewer baths.

Water spurting from shower heads can distribute bacteria-filled droplets that suspend themselves in the air and can easily be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs, say the scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Potential Threat

Lead researcher Professor Norman Pace, said: “If you are getting a face full of water when you first turn your shower on, that means you are probably getting a particularly high load of Mycobacterium avium, which may not be too healthy.”

While it is rarely a problem for most healthy people, those with weakened immune systems, like the elderly, pregnant women or those who are fighting off other diseases, can be susceptible to infection.

They may develop lung infection with M. avium and experience symptoms including tiredness, a persistent, dry cough, shortness of breath and weakness, and generally feel unwell.

When the researchers swabbed and tested 50 shower heads from nine cities in seven different states in the US, including New York City and Denver, they found 30% of the devices posed a potential risk.

Since plastic shower heads appear to “load up” with more bacteria-rich biofilms, metal shower heads may be a good alternative, said Professor Pace.

Showers have also been identified as a route for spreading other infectious diseases, including a type of pneumonia called Legionnaires’ disease and chest infections with a bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Hot tubs and spa pools carry a similar infection risk, according to the Health Protection Agency.

A HPA spokesperson said: “This is an interesting paper which provides further information about the occurrence of opportunist organisms – germs which do not usually cause infections in humans – in the environment.

“These bacteria, which belong to the same family as TB, can be found in the environment and occasionally in water supplies but rarely cause disease in healthy people.

“Further work will need to look at whether finding these organisms is associated with any increased risk of infection.”

Study confirms dangers of fluoridated water

Advocates of fluoridated water insist that the chemical additive is good for teeth, but actual science routinely shows otherwise, including a new study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association confirming fluoride as a toxic substance that actually destroys teeth, particularly those of developing young children and babies.

When people are exposed to excessive levels of fluoride through sources like drinking water, foods and beverages and even swallowed toothpaste, it often results in a condition known as dental fluorosis. The internal uptake of fluoride into teeth over time causes their enamel to become mottled and discolored, the end result being damaged teeth that have essentially rotted from the inside out.

Dr. Steven Levy, D.D.S., and his team found during their study that “fluoride intakes during each of the first four years (of a child’s life) were individually significantly related to fluorosis on maxillary central incisors, with the first year more important.” They went on to warn that “infant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, or cow’s milk.”

In other words, young children have the highest risk of severe tooth damage from fluoride, especially those that are six months of age or younger, a time during which children’s blood-brain barriers have not fully formed. Even low ingestion levels cause the direct depositing of fluoride into the teeth, brain and other bodily tissues and organs which, besides causing fluorosis, also causes disorders of the brain and nervous system, kidneys and bones.

And the American Dental Association (ADA) has known that fluoride exposure causes dental fluorosis since at least 2006, but the group has done nothing to warn the 200 million Americans that live in communities with fluoridated water to avoid its use in babies and infants. Many dentists still recommend that children and adults not only drink fluoridated water, but even advise parents to add fluoride drops to their children’s drinking water if the family lives in unfluoridated areas or drinks private well water.

Fluoride causes serious health problems

In 2006, a study published in The Lancet identified fluoride as “an emerging neurotoxic substance” that causes severe brain damage. The National Research Council (NRC) wrote that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.”

About a month later, another study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found a definitive link between fluoride intake and reduce IQ levels, indicating once again that fluoride intake causes cognitive damage.

At Harvard University, researchers identified a link between fluoride and bone cancer. Published 14 years after it began, the study found that the highest rates of osteosarcoma, a fatal form of bone cancer, were occurring most in populations drinking fluoridated water. The findings confirmed those of a prior government study back in 1990 that involved fluoride-treated rats.

Kidney disease is another hallmark of fluoride poisoning. Multiple animal studies have found that fluoride levels as low as 1 part per million (ppm) — which is the amount added to most fluoridated water systems — cause kidney damage. And a Chinese study found that children exposed to slightly higher fluoride levels had biological markers in their blood indicative of kidney damage.

The NRC has also found that fluoride impairs proper thyroid function and debilitates the endocrine system. Up until the 1970s, fluoride was used in Europe as a thyroid-suppressing medication because it lowers thyroid function. Many experts believe that widespread hypothyroidism today is a result of overexposure to fluoride.

There simply is no legitimate reason to fluoridate water. Doing so forcibly medicates an entire population with a carcinogenic, chemical drug. There really is no effective way to avoid it entirely, and nobody really knows how much is ingested or absorbed on a daily basis because exposure is too widespread to calculate. But political pressure and bad science have continued to justify water fluoridation in most major cities, despite growing mountains of evidence showing its dangers.

(NaturalNews) The following article is, in essence, my testimony delivered to the Hawaii Senate Health Committee in 2008. It contains facts that anyone can use to oppose water flouridation wherever you live. The good news is that once again we have been successful in keeping fluoride out of our water supply.

Here we go again. Let’s take our pure and tasty drinking water, put a medication (fluoride) in it, make the people accept it and make believe we have Freedom of Choice in this country.

I would like to pose some hypothetical questions:

What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride was not “safe and effective” at all, but was actually a carcinogenic industrial waste?

What would you do if you learned that the sugar lobby’s answer to cavity reduction is more fluoride rather than less sugar in the diet?

What would you think if you suddenly found out that fluoride doesn’t stop tooth decay at all, but actually causes teeth to rot and crumble, and by the same mechanism also causes osteoporosis?

What would you do if you found out that a myriad of research and reports from China, showing that fluoride ingestion causes interference with brain development, had been purposely withheld from the people in the U.S.?

What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood, depresses thyroid activity, promotes the development of bone cancer, causes premature aging of the human body, and is used in rat poison, and that the contents of a family size tube of overpriced, huge profit margined fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 25 pound child?

And after you found out all this, would it surprise you that federal health agencies have known these facts for years, but have been controlled by the political interests of the nuclear arms, aluminum, and phosphate manufacturers to keep it a secret?

Why would they do that? So that a toxic industrial waste could be passed off on the public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of $10 billion a year or more going in the pockets of these industries rather then they having to spend that amount to dispose of it properly as a toxic waste.

Next, we have to look at the people that are for and against this assault upon our health.

Those against this horror movie are everyday people. Accountants, retired engineers, chemistry professors, teachers, acupuncturists, dentists, believe it or not, the Union of Scientists at the EPA, and a host of others from all walks of life. And, all of them come armed with peer-reviewed scientific literature to back up what they have to say.

Those in favor of this horror movie, with lots of credentials, are the majority of dentists, the public health officials and many people in various government positions. And what do they come armed with? Speculation and years of repeating, like good little lemmings, that fluoride is “safe and effective”. If it were so safe and effective to ingest, why would the CDC say that fluoride’s effectiveness is on the surface of the tooth and only after it comes into the mouth?

Anyway, let’s take a look at some of these individuals with, “credentials”.

Dr. Mark Greer, Dental Chief, Hawaii Dept. of Health
Back in the year 2000, Dr. Greer, on Hawaii Public Radio, made the statement that fluoride is safe because there were toxicology tests done on it that verified this. Sounds great doesn’t it? There’s one problem though – only in 2006, by the National Research Council, were toxicology tests done on the fluoride substances that are added to the water supply with the conclusion that fluoride was indeed toxic and dangerous to health. Their finding? Anything more than 1.2 ppm is toxic! Also, after trying unsuccessfully twice to obtain a copy of Dr. Greer’s alleged report substantiating his toxicology assertion, I had to go through the Attorney General’s office to obtain the report under the Freedom of Information Act. It’s funny though that the several hundred page report that I received from Dr. Greer contained nothing about toxicology testing. I guess he thought I would never read such a long, boring report. But, when you know that a person is a liar, you leave nothing to chance.
So, the question that arises is, why would a man in Dr. Greer’s position deliberately lie? Does his brainwashed desire to fluoridate the water supply take precedence over his integrity? Apparently and unbelievably, so!

Dr. Chester Douglass, Dental School Head, Harvard University
In late 2005 or early 2006, one of Dr. Douglass’ dental doctorate students, Elise Bassin, prepared a thesis on fluoride. Dr. Douglass then released her thesis with one minor modification. He eliminated the part in the thesis where Bassin proved that fluoride causes bone cancer in adolescent boys. Boy oh boy, why would Dr. Douglass deliberately eliminate that part? I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass’s being on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had anything to do with it? Then, Harvard did their own in-house investigation of Dr. Douglass’ actions and exonerated him. I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass’s donation of $1 million to Harvard had any influence in that decision?

Dr. Bruce Anderson, former Director of Health, State of Hawaii
Back in 2004 or 2005 there was a hearing to determine whether or not the MCL (maximum contaminant level) of fluoride should be raised from 2ppm to 4ppm in Hawaii. Despite testimony by the public and many employees of the water department against such a raise, Dr. Anderson, public servant that he was, upped the level anyway.
Consider this: mother’s milk contains .005 – .01 ppm of fluoride. The question you have to ask yourself is, who is right, God or the politicians?

Dentists
Consider this: that same National Research Council report came to the conclusion that fluoridated water should not be used in infant formula because of the danger of neurological damage and that kidney patients, diabetics, seniors and outdoor workers were susceptible populations especially vulnerable to harm from fluoride ingestion. Yet, many dentists, many of the States’ Dental Associations and our Public Health officials have failed to pass on that message. Do you think that it might be hard for some people to admit they were wrong about something?

Before organized dentistry became fluoride fixated, a 1950 Connecticut study, before fluoridation, clearly linked more fruit and vegetable consumption and less sugar consumption to fewer cavities. Did you know that a 20-ounce bottle of soda contains 14 teaspoons of sugar and a 7-11 “Big Gulp” contains 56 teaspoons of sugar? If there were any more than that the sugar would too heavy and settle to the bottom. But, I guess the dentists’ answer to that situation would be if the soda were made with fluoridated water, cavities could be prevented. Riiiiiiight!

After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans via public water supplies, virtually 100% via the food supply and fluoridated dental products (a multi-billion dollar international business), up to a half of U.S. schoolchildren sport fluoride overdose symptoms as dental fluorosis – white, yellow or brown, and sometimes pitted teeth (1). But, tooth decay is still a national epidemic, especially among the low-income people who can’t find dentists willing or able to fix their rotting teeth. And why are the dentists not willing or able to treat these low-income people? Because the amount that Medicaid pays is too low.

Dental Health Aide Therapists (DHATs) could be a solution to the oral health crisis. DHATs are to dentists what Physician’s Assistants and Nurse Practitioners are to physicians. DHATs
work successfully throughout the world and can drill, fill and pull teeth in the mouths and geographic areas where dentists will not or cannot go, more cheaply and as effectively (2).

Sounds really good doesn’t it? The problem is that the American Dental Society and the Alaska Dental Society are suing to stop DHATs from supplying much needed dental care in Alaska where dentists cannot be enticed to live or work for love or money (3). Defying organized dentistry, the first U.S. DHAT School just opened in Alaska to train more DHATs (3).

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was an established neurotoxicologist whose research proved fluoride to be a neurotoxin affecting the central nervous system. Her work was not only dismissed when she published it in 1995, but it also ended her career. What’s ironic is that one of her mentors, Dr. Harold Hodge, who served as the chief toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, aka the Atomic Energy Commission, was instrumental in selling fluoride to the public. As her work progressed and she reported her findings to Hodge, he shrugged them off. It wasn’t until much later that
Mullenix learned that Hodge had conducted his own research 50 years earlier and had discovered then the connection between fluoride and its ill effects on the central nervous system.

Many of the early opponents to water fluoridation recognized that fluoride was a critical component in uranium and aluminum production and a necessity in the making of the “bomb”. Common sense told them that adding the waste product of a chemical that can cut through steel
is bound to have some adverse health effects. Despite their best efforts, a massive PR campaign was waged and won and fluoride was shoved into public drinking water supplies and into dental curriculums -a neat and tidy solution to the expensive problem of what to do with toxic waste. And, much of the research supporting fluoridation came from industry-funded studies. How objective!

Conclusion

The National Research Council advises that more studies are required on fluoride’s effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, immune deficiencies, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions, arthritis-like conditions, and more.

So, why do the dental associations and public health officials still cling to the idea that fluoridation is good?
Denial?
Dental school indoctrination?
Embarrassment that they have been wrong all along?
Possible liability associated with all the deleterious health effects people have suffered from fluoride being thrust upon them against their will?
I guess it’s more convenient to carry on with the idea that fluoridation is beneficial than to lose face!

So, here we are again having yet another debate about fluoridation. And again the “uncredentialed” come in with references to peer-reviewed studies and the “credentialed” come in with, “it’s been proven safe and effective”, unsubstantiated speculation.

In 1961, when Dwight D. Eisenhower left the Presidency, he warned the American people to be aware of the rapidly growing power of the military-industrial complex. He surely knew then how deeply entrenched the connections between industry and military affairs had become. Have we learned from this some 40 odd years later? Not by my standards we haven’t.

Please, for heaven’s sake, keep our drinking water pure and don’t use it as a vehicle to deliver a highly toxic medication recommended by credentialed individuals with no integrity.

Consider this: under the Pure Water Drinking Act it is illegal to dump fluoride in the lakes, streams and oceans. But, for some weird reason, it’s ok for fluoride to do this if it passes through a water faucet and a person’s body first.

About the author

Hesh Goldstein: Vegetarian since 1975, vegan since 1990. Moderator of a weekly radio show in Honolulu called, “Health Talk” since 1981. Obtained a Master’s degree in Nutrition, in 2007, to silence the so-called “doctors” that called in on my weekly radio show asking for my “credentials”. At 70, I am in perfect health, have no illnesses, take no meds, play 4 on 4 half court hoops 2 hours a week, body surf, race walk, do various cardio and weight exercises and teach women’s self defense classes based upon 30 years of Wing Chun training .
To obtain a state of good health, if it had a face or a mother or if man made it, don’t eat it.
For more information: www.healthtalkhawaii.com
Hesh is also the distributor of Organic Sulfur Crystals, an incredible healing nutrient. For more information on this go to his website and click on Products.

New Research: Fluoride Linked to #1 Cause of Death

Groundbreaking new research has linked sodium fluoride to cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide.

Researchers found that fluoride consumption directly stimulates the hardening of your arteries, a condition known as atherosclerosis that is highly correlated with the #1 killer.

Sodium fluoride is currently added to the water supply of many cities worldwide, despite extreme opposition from health professionals and previous studies linking it to decreased IQ and infertility.

In their research, scientists examined the relationship between fluoride intake and the hardening (calcification) of the arteries. Studying more than 60 patients, the researchers found a significant correlation between fluoride consumption and the calcification of your arteries. Published in the January edition of the journal Nuclear Medicine Communications, the research highlights the fact that mass fluoride exposure may be to blame for the cardiovascular disease epidemic that takes more lives each year than cancer. In 2008, cardiovascular killed 17 million people.

According to the authors of the study:

The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.

Amazingly, this is not the first report to come out on the dangers of water fluoridation; however, the United States government (along with other nations) has allowed for the continued fluoridation of the public water supply despite these key findings. In fact, the U.S. government has even gone on record stating that a reduction in water fluoridation needs to occur following the results of a massive study that found water fluoridation affected cognitive function to the point of lowering the IQ of children. It turns out that the announcement was little more than a public relations stunt to curtail the massive wave of activism that followed the findings.

Government Admits Dangers Yet Continues to Pump Fluoride Into Your Water Supply

Over 24 other studies have unanimously concluded that fluoride negatively impacts cognitive function. In addition to these 24 studies focusing on cognition, over 100 animal studies have linked fluoride to an increase in male infertility, diabetes, and a whole host of other health problems. In the latest study on cognition, it was found that that 28% of the children who lived in an area where fluoride levels were low achieved the highest test scores. This means that the children exposed to less fluoride scored normal or advanced, while only 8% of fluoridated children did the same.

S45 – In case of accident or if you feel unwell, seek medical advice immediately (show the label whenever possible.)

But what about cavity prevention?

Since 1962 the government has recommended fluoride levels between 0.7 and 1.2 milligrams per liter in the nation’s drinking water. Touted as an excellent cavity blocker, fluoride has been praised for its alleged power to prevent tooth decay and boost oral health. Research has now revealed that fluoride, the very substance that is supposed to prevent tooth decay, actually does nothing to prevent against cavities. In fact, vitamin D has been found to be significantly more effective in cavity prevention without the extreme side effects. Instead of damaging your body, vitamin D slashes your risk of just about everything fluoride consumption causes.

According to the latest numbers, over 72 percent of Americans drink water treated with fluoride. Is it any wonder that cardiovascular disease rates are off the charts? Perhaps most concerning is the fact that fluoride does not even prevent cavities, which is the very reason legislators have pushed to keep it in the public water supply despite the links to deadly disease. Even if fluoride was found to prevent cavities, would it be worth the adverse effects?

Fluoride should be completely removed from the international water supply, as it is a threat to public health. Until the proper legislation is passed, acquiring a high-quality water filter that removes fluoride is vital for the health perseverance of you and your family.

Water is incredibly important to the human body. The average adult human body is 55-60% water. A baby’s body is closer to 75%. Two crucial organs in the body, the brain and the lungs, are 70% and 90% water, respectively. For this reason, the quality of the water you drink greatly impacts your overall health.

Modern society has degraded the quality of the water around us due to our poor environmental habits. This has led us to a point where high-quality drinking water can be difficult to find. While the argument is made that tap water is among the best water available to us, a series of testing for the ingredients in our tap water would tell almost anyone that it is certainly not of high quality.

Recent analyses of municipal drinking water have shown that, despite government regulations, there are still many dangerous contaminants present in our water. There are many chemicals that are not regulated and there is no legal specifications to restrict what amount of certain chemicals can be in the water. This means that certain chemicals can be found in any given amount.[1]

To make matters worse, many municipalities in Canada and the United States voluntarily add fluoride to their water supplies without the consent or vote of the citizens. In fact, most citizens and government officials are drastically misinformed about fluoride. I personally tested this out by calling my local water company here in Toronto. At the municipal and provincial level, (equivalent to state level) they were unable to provide me with any information regarding the safety of fluoride, nor were they able to provide any documentation to suggest that water fluoridation helps to prevent tooth decay. After chasing The Dental Association of Canada, I received a long-winded answer that also did not address whether or not water fluoridation has any effect.[2]

The Safe Drinking Water Act only regulates 91 potential water contaminants. In the US alone, over 60,000 chemicals are used that can find their way into water supplies. Many of them have been identified as possible carcinogens. Current estimates suggest that there is more than 2,100 known chemical toxins present in U.S. tap water. Cities with older pipelines also face problems as chemicals leach from the lines as the water travels.[3]

What’s in our tap water?

1. Fluoride

Fluoride is one of the biggest, dare I say, ‘shocking calls’ that has ever been made when it comes to voluntarily polluting our water with toxic chemicals. Most may not know, but the fluoride used in water fluoridation practices is a mix of a number of highly toxic chemicals, including radioactive chemicals, that are formed during aluminum and fertilizer production. The substance is considered a class 4 hazardous waste product by the EPA and it is illegal to dump anywhere in the environment. Allow me to say, this is not a conspiracy theory, the chemical used in our water, hydrofluorocilicic acid is in fact a class 4 hazardous waste substance that is ILLEGAL to dump in the environment.

Yet, for over 50 years, the U.S. government has mandated that fluoride be added to the water supply to prevent dental problems. What we don’t realize is that we are still dumping this waste product into the environment, but under the guise of a “health practice.” While there has never been research to suggest the safety or effectiveness of water fluoridation, current research has shown that fluoride has been shown to damage tooth enamel, increase fracture risk, suppress immune and thyroid function, increase cancer risk and disrupt the function of the pineal gland.

The good news, cities all over North America have been banning the chemical over the last few years and it is expected to continue. Many European countries have banned the use of fluoride altogether. We have quite a few articles about this on our website.

2. Chlorine

We have all heard of chlorine; not only is it found in our water, but also in most swimming pools. In both uses, it is called upon as a disinfectant as it effectively kills microorganisms. The trouble is that chlorine does not know when to stop killing organisms, which leads to toxic effects for the body. Chlorine has been identified as a leading cause of bladder cancer, and has been associated with rectal and breast cancers, asthma, birth defects and premature aging of skin.[8] We covered this topic in great depth in the January issue of CE Magazine.

3. Radioactive Contaminants

Remember the Fukushima nuclear accident? Since then, radioactive fallout from Japan has been detected in drinking water supplies throughout the United States. Radioactive iodine-131 was detected in drinking water samples from 13 U.S. cities.[4] In some cities, radioactive cesium and tellurium isotopes have also been detected at low levels. (You can view this data on the EPA’s website.) The health implications of this radioactive contamination are not known yet.

4. Pharmaceutical Drugs

Pharmaceutical drugs are consumed in great numbers in North America. Inevitably, these drugs find their way into our water after being flushed or discarded via urine. Investigations have demonstrated that an increasing number of pharmaceutical drugs are finding their way into our drinking water and this should pose some concern.[5] Anything from antibiotics and birth control pills to painkillers, antidepressants and other psychiatric medications are showing up in most municipal water supplies.

5. Hexavalent Chromium

An Environmental Working Group report revealed that hexavalent chromium, a chemical identified as “probably carcinogen by the EPA,” is present in high concentrations in 31 U.S. cities.[6] If you are unaware of this chemical, it was made famous by the movie, Erin Brockovich, which chronicled the truth story battle against Pacific Gas and Electric for contaminating the water in an area of Southern California. The chemical poisoned thousands of people yet there are still no regulations for hexavalent chromium in drinking water.

6. Lead, Aluminum & Heavy Metals

Lead and other heavy metals can make their way into our tap water as a result of the corrosion of pipes in our plumbing systems. Lead consumption has been linked to severe developmental delays and learning disorders in children. Aluminum and other heavy metals have been linked to nerve, brain and kidney damage. In the United States, some municipalities still transport water in lead pipes.

7. Arsenic

Arsenic is a well known poisonous element known to be extremely carcinogenic. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, it is estimated that as many as 56 million Americans drink water containing unsafe levels of arsenic.[7] Considering the carcinogenic nature of Arsenic, this can greatly increase the rate of cancer. To find out what areas contain more arsenic, see the following link, USGS website.

What Can You Do?

In my opinion you have a couple of choices. One would be to, at the very least, begin getting your water from a store that offers reverse osmosis water. Due to the lack of minerals in RO water, it would be beneficial to add minerals back via supplements. This solution is not overly expensive and you can begin the change today. You can also buy a ‘under-the-sink’ reverse osmosis system for about $250-$400.

To solve the mineral issue, ask your filtration provider about a PH balancer or re-mineralization stage that can be added for another $100 – $150. Both will remineralize the water with magnesium and calcium as it would be produced in nature. I would not recommend a Brita filter as a solution, as it does not remove many of the contaminants nor does it truly solve the chlorine problem. This is covered in depth in the January issue of CE Magazine. There are costs involved in any solution, but what is your health worth to you?